1. Good afternoon, welcome
to the Committee. We do not always ask for oral evidence but we
thought we should in this instance. I understand that you would
like to make some form of opening statement?

(Ms Jackson) Yes,
indeed.

2. Thank you. Before
you do so would you just introduce yourselves, please?

(Ms Jackson) Yes,
of course. Good afternoon. I am Hilary Jackson, Head of the Juvenile
Offenders Unit in the Home Office which is responsible for the
policy on secure training centres and the Secure Training Order.
This is Teresa Burnhams who works with me and heads the secure
training centre section in that unit. Tim Middleton is from our
legal adviser's branch. Caroline Price is also from our legal
adviser's branch. Thank you for inviting a statement. This is
really just to add to the formal memorandum that we sent in response
to some of the questions that you raised in writing. The Home
Secretary has asked us to thank you on his behalf for the comments
that were made. The point that we really want to address in the
opening statement relates to the Secure Training Centre (Escorts)
Rules about which I know you have particular concerns about rule
2(4) which dealt with the arrangements for allowing for young
offenders or trainees when they were being taken to the secure
training centres from the court to be searched and strip searched
in some situations. We do not envisage that is likely to happen
except in exceptional circumstances. The laws allow for it as
much for the protection of the young person in case there is any
reason to suppose they have with them something with which they
can self-harm or indeed harm any of the custody officers with
them. The rules as drafted provide that there must be two officers
present and the contract that one of them must be of the same
sex as the female offender. We have now looked at this again in
the light of the concern and the Home Secretary has looked again
at the rules and he has agreed and decided that we ought to change
the rules to make certain that there will always be two custody
officers who are with the young person who will both always be
of the same sex, which in practice is what we would have expected
to happen anyway through the arrangements with the contractor
for the escort. The Home Secretary has agreed and does think that
it is important that is made clear in the rules. We will be undertaking
to amend the rules to make that clear.

3. When? That is the
first question I suppose one should ask.

(Mrs Price) The
rules could be made very quickly. There would be the normal requirement
for them to be laid before Parliament 21 days after being laid
before they come into force. If this Committee were to suggest
that in the circumstances that 21 day rule need not be applied
because you would be anxious for it to come into force as quickly
as possible then we could submit a memorandum saying in the circumstances
we will not lay it for 21 days. As to the making of the rules,
I would imagine that could be done within the next month.

(Mr Middleton) It
would be subject to a review of the policy. This is a decision
that the Home Secretary has reached recently. I am just anxious
not to make a commitment that we cannot keep to because the Home
Secretary will have reached this view very recently and we will
need to look at the policy to see how we can make the amendment.
It may not be a straightforward drafting change because it is
a change of policy. It is certainly something that we will progress
as quickly as we can.

Lord Skelmersdale

4. But surely, Chairman,
the change of policy that you have just explained has already
been made and since it has already been made what is to inhibit
you from getting on with it quite quickly?

(Ms Jackson) We
will. For our part in the Home Office we will get on with that
and we will undertake to do it as quickly as we can. There is
no wish to delay on this.

5. If the policy was
still under discussion I could well understand.

(Ms Jackson) It
is not under discussion in the sense of that decision being taken,
we simply need to agree with ministers the drafting as to exactly
how we change the rules to deliver the policy that we want to
deliver, which is that two people of the same sex should be there.
Then it is simply a case of going through the necessary procedures.

Mr Bennett

6. The initial orders
came into force on 16 April, did they not?

(Ms Jackson) They
did.

7. Can you give us a
guarantee that so far this situation has not arisen?

(Ms Jackson) It
has not.

8. And that it will not
arise before you replace them with the new regulations which will
stop it?

(Ms Jackson) It
has not arisen yet. We have talked to the contractors about the
position now. I do not know if there is anything you want to add
on that, Teresa?

(Mrs Burnhams) They
have no intention of using other than the same sex to do the searching.
They have given us an absolute guarantee that that will be the
case until the rules are changed.

Lord Walker

9. Ms Jackson, may I
ask if it would be thought consistent to have similar rules applied
to strip searching for people bathing? I have been in Doncaster
Prison and have watched young men at the showers totally stripped
with a whole host of people being able to watch through a one-way
mirror. Am I right?

(Ms Jackson) I
do not know. We cannot really speak on the Prison Service, I am
sorry. There is nobody here from the Prison Service. Within the
STCs the facilities all have en-suite showers.

10. This is where young people
are held on remand. I visited the prison and saw young men taking
a shower and I assumed they could not see me because they gave
no indication of being aware of my presence. It seems to me that
would be an analogous situation where a young offender is being
strip searched, in other words the need for the privacy of the
individual is being respected.

(Mr Middleton) That
does not arise in the secure training centres because each room
has an individual shower as I understand it. There are no communal
showering arrangements in the secure training centres.

Chairman: Thank you for
explaining that point.

Mr Bennett

11. Can I take you back to
the first set of regulations then and ask you how it is supposed
to work. Supposing an officer meets someone who has been a former
trainee or a relative or friend of a former trainee, how are they
supposed to communicate with the governor before they actually
respond to a question or a comment from that individual?

(Mrs Price) This
is rule 39(7).

(Mr Middleton) The
purpose of this rule is to prevent officers from initiating communications
and it is thought that it would work in that way, that the officer
himself should not communicate with a person who he knows to be
a former trainee. Of course, a casual encounter is always possible.
He obviously would not be expected to seek the governor's authority
in those circumstances then. It is in the guidance for officers
that they would be expected to report back to the governor if
any such encounter occurred.

12. They are allowed actually
to complete the conversation?

(Mr Middleton) Of
course.

13. How does that work with
the regulations?

(Mrs Price) The
governor subsequently would be informed that the communication
had taken place.

Chairman

14. Can you speak up, please?

(Mrs Price) The
governor would be subsequently informed that that conversation
had taken place.

Lord Walker

15. May I just follow on
from this. You may recall when we first discussed this Statutory
Instrument a matter that I raised, because my weekend social activities
take me to public houses which are in the proximity of penal institutions
in Doncaster and Lindholme and Hatfield where there is a juvenile
institution, former borstal, and of course the prison staff go
for a drink in the same pub and we get into social conversation
which occasionally takes us into the professional interests of
the prison staff. Now, if such an occasion arises, as it may well
do, and has done, is that prison officer under an obligation to
then say: "Sir, I had a pint last night in the Robin Hood
and Little John, and I got into a conversation with Harold Walker
and I think I ought to tell you, boss"? Really that seems
to be an unreasonable burden that they should say: "I cannot
talk to you, Harold, because the rules say I cannot. The rules
say I have to go to the governor and tell him I had a chat with
you". That seems to be the implication of 39(7). Am I wrong?

(Mr Middleton) This
is on the assumption that you are a former inmate?

16. 39(7) does not say that.

(Mr Middleton) Or
a relative or friend.

Lord Walker: "...a
relative or friend of a trainee or former trainee". My constituents
when I was the Member of Parliament for Doncaster regularly kept
in touch. Their friends and relatives went on prison visits and
they went in the pub for a pint: "Oh, are you the local MP?
Can I have a word with you, sir?" It is very difficult, is
it not?

Chairman

17. I think what we are driving
at is we want to know what is the mischief that rule 39(7) is
intended to combat?

(Mr Middleton) It
is to protect former offenders and officers from maintaining relationships
that could create difficulties once the inmates are no longer
 Sorry, the trainees. I am using the word "inmates"
because this is directly taken from the equivalent rules that
the Prison Service has for prisons and young offender institutions.
It is to put in a controlled framework any associations that occur
when the trainee has left the establishment.

18. And you are saying that
this controlled framework is already being used within the Prison
Service?

(Mr Middleton) Yes.

19. So what sort of difficulty
are you referring to?

(Ms Jackson) It
is really there as a sort of check and balance to make sure that
communications do not take place but if they do take place once
the trainee has left the secure training centre it is a proper
relationship and a proper form of communication. It is about protecting
young people from any possible inappropriate relations once they
have left or indeed the same in the Prison Service in relation
to prison staff and indeed to protect the officers.